Another chapter in misleading voters

U-T San Diego

Before the 2006 general election, the U-T Editorial Board interviewed the Democratic candidate for attorney general. Jerry Brown assured us he shared our dismay over the bipartisan history of attorneys general writing slanted ballot titles and summaries that benefited political allies and punished political foes. Brown was elected, but continued this shameful practice, with judges ordering revisions to his most egregious attempts to shape voter opinion.

Before the 2010 general election, the Editorial Board interviewed the Democratic candidate for attorney general. Kamala Harris assured us she shared our dismay over the bipartisan history of attorneys general writing slanted ballot titles and summaries that benefited allies and punished foes. Harris was elected and, alas, is continuing this shameful practice.

Her description of Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax-hike proposal for the November ballot might as well as have been written by Brown himself, emphasizing the pain the public will face if the measure is not approved, while her descriptions of two pension-reform proposals are clearly intended to convey a negative message.

This has to stop. Responsibility for drafting ballot language must be taken from the Attorney General’s Office and given to a more neutral party, perhaps the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Fair Political Practices Commission or the auditor. Voters should not be manipulated in making decisions about state issues, and they should not have to hope state courts protect them from such manipulation.